remedy, the Court has established that for an effective remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or in law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress. A remedy that is illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered effective. 222 This may occur, for example, when the ineffectiveness of a remedy has been demonstrated in practice, because there are no means to execute it or because of any other situation that implies the denial of justice. 223 Thus, the process should be aimed at implementing the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling through the proper application of said ruling. 224 186. The Court has pointed out that, under the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific obligations of the State. The first is to regulate and ensure the proper application of effective remedies before the competent authorities, which protect all persons under its jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations. The second is to guarantee the means to enforce the respective remedies and final decisions issued by such competent authorities, 225 so as to effectively protect the rights declared or recognized. The right established in Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation in Article 1(1) of the Convention, inasmuch as it assigns duties of protection to the States Parties through their domestic legislation. 226 Thus, the State not only has a duty to design and embody in legislation an effective remedy, but also to ensure the proper application of said remedy by its judicial authorities. 227 187. The Court notes that Ecuador expressly acknowledged its violation of Article 25 of the American Convention during the public hearing in the following terms: Ecuador acknowledges [the] right to a simple, prompt and effective remedy, in Article 25 of the Convention, inasmuch as in the case of the former judges the State did not provide an appropriate and effective legal remedy against the National Congress’s Resolution of 2004 which could determine whether a human rights violation had occurred. 188. In this case, the Court has accepted the acknowledgement of international responsibility under the terms expressly established by the State. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is necessary to define the scope of this acquiescence and, within that framework, rule on the remaining disputes, including whether or not the State violated Article 25 by failing to comply with its obligation to offer, to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, an effective legal remedy against acts that violated their fundamental rights. 222 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 7, para. 137, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 142. 223 Cf. Case Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 58, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 107. 224 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction, para. 73, and Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, para. 345. 225 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 83. 226 Cf. Case Castillo Paez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83, and Case of the Xakmok Kasek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 141. 227 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 237, and Case of the Xakmok Kasek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay, para. 141. 55